Appeal No. 96-2278
Application 08/175,001
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for 2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Axelrod does not fully meet
the invention as recited in claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-15. We are
also of the view that the teachings of Senanayake and Piosenka
2The reply brief filed February 7, 1996 was denied entry
by the examiner [Paper No. 15]. Accordingly, we have not
considered the reply brief in the formulation of this
decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007